Hi Russell,

Excuse the lateness of some of my replies, that require a bit more indepth response. I cannot often catch up to it all, so I hope nobody thinks I'm ignoring their responses. I read them all, but may not have time or energy to respond in more depth.




True, some are carriers. But if what you say is true and we share more diseases with the great apes than any other animal and there really is very little differences in their handling of these diseases (compatiblity goes both ways), then there should be no issue with using their organs and no unpleasant surprises. But we know this isn't so. This continues to be THE issue here. Should they find a way of surmounting this, it still does not prove anything either way. Even if a particular animal might share more characteristics with humans than others, may not be enough to bridge such a gap that even medical intervention struggles to achieve. Apes/monkeys do not even have a capacity for speech, yet parrots do. There are other animals out there that may share certain traits closer to humans even than primates. Again, does not mean we share a common ancestor.



Regardless, it hasn't proven surmountable and the risk and obvious difficulties remain. Many people (even some on this forum) use pig thyroid extracts, but I know of nobody using or even considering the idea of ape/monkey thyroid extracts.....so it still gets confusing Russell. The closest relationship with apes/monkeys out of all the animals?.... Yet still can't quite bridge the gap regardless.



Certain similarities between creatures exists everywhere. Certain traits with some animals and humans are not limited to the primates or even creatures themselves. The fact that nature is compatible in many ways, is necessary for survival in diet and in ways for human beings to find answers in nature to help us medically and elsewhere. I see this as reflecting the mind of the creator, rather than a series of chances/process all responsible for such forethought that is necessary for all these things to come together.

E.g. the speech of a parrot etc. This does not mean that humans evolved from birds, but supports that there are some striking traits within animals that are hard to ignore. This again appears to support common design within nature, rather than evolution. If it were evolution responsible, then one must wonder why parrots have the capacity for speech, yet our own apparently closest relatives really do not. However much they are trained to utter a sound that sounds like a word, it's a struggle, even with much rewards/treats at the end of it.

Evolutionists seem to ignore the common traits of other animals associated with human beings and prefer instead to focus on primates. It is true that we are most similar to primates in appearance and would expect this to be reflected genetically also, moreso than other creatures, but the differences are often ignored or played down and that is a mistake, because significant differences do indeed exist and ignoring them I think causes us to miss the big picture. We require compatibility within nature for survival - e.g. fruits, vegetables etc which are designed specifically to nourish us and other creatures bodies. We also share meat eating with the carnivals. Primates, as a rule, (for the most part) do not tend to go after other animals for food. They can out of desperation or attack, but it's not part of their general diet (thank goodness).

In fact, out of desperation, squirrels have attacked other animals for food on the rare occasion (a dog is one such example that was killed by a gang of squirrels). This is the exception, rather than the rule. Humans however, many indeed eat meat as part of their daily diet and once hunted for meat. Can anybody point out a primate who goes about hunting for meat? Making spears and other tools to do so? As far as I know, they stick to the same diet they're accustomed to and don't seem to deviate from it. Some people do go vegetarian, but that is a choice also. The meat eating is something we have more common with the carniverous animals, than primates.

Even a small percentage of difference in DNA can make for a significant difference. Considering that the information contained with DNA itself has been compared with the information contained within MANY encylopedias. This apparent "small" difference then becomes significant and if that were not so, then we would indeed have much more in common with primates than we'd care to admit and bananas wouldn't be far off either. Yet the similarity allows us to consume them and gain nourishment, since they are designed for us and are biochemically compatible. The DNA differences are significant enough between us and primates that it is not a criminal offense to "cage" our "cousins". Thankfully, the similarities in DNA give us the common feature of coming from the same designer and living on the same planet, but not equal or we'd really be in trouble. The differences in DNA percentage, however small, are what make us unique from the other and are significant when you look at the whole picture.

One must also ask about our apparent "common ancestor" and whether they had the capacity for speech and why did this capacity turn up in us and not the primates? Yet still we are claimed to be from the same ancestor.

Yet somehow parrots have the capacity for speech and even ability to put words into sentences and make meaning out of them. Masters of imitation of both us and nature. But evenso the structure that allows them to produce such sounds still differs from humans; yet the fact they have the intelligence and ability is "ignored" by evolutionists in preference to keep waving the "ape to man" flag. Why? Evolutionists don't consider common design within nature, because this points to a common designer. They are looking to compartmentise everything into the evolutionary box and pin on particular labels. But if one looks at the big picture, there are problems.

If indeed there really is a "common ancestor" then from where did they come and how? And where is the proof of their evolutionary arrival on the stage?

No matter how much evolution one throws on everything, animals have remained animals and there is a clear difference between all animals/creatures and human beings. We are fully aware of them and pretending one believes we are equal is lying. If in fact we are all equal, then how is it we have rights to retain/contain them, cage them, shoot them, eat them, ride them, use them, choose them as pets, use them in different areas of work depending on their suitability, do experiments on them, etc.....There is no doubt that even if you believe in evolution, man is the only creature that stands out and above every other creature. It seems to me that evolution had a particlar 'creature' in mind to esteem above all others, because it certainly didn't go any further withthe rest as far as human qualities/gifts are concerned. Unless you can think of an animal that designs aeroplanes, conducts an orchestras, writes and presents a theisis, teaches a class of others, gives speeches, debates oneanother, considers the future, makes specific plans, uses his/her imagination, etc etc.

Your comments regarding the Pope, still have no reflection on the evolution theory being a fact. Whether he changes his mind or not, which all humans are subject to do and have the right to changes in opinion if more evidence (or what they feel is evidence) comes to light. It still does not change the biblical word or the Catechsim. It's quite possible the Pope had not heard much of the creation science side, just as I once didn't either. His apparent back-peddling as you call it, is possibly changes of opinion due to more information.

Either way, the statements still don't do anything to prove evolution. So I'm not sure why it's necessary to keep talking about the Pope on this issue.

Yes, a person can be a Christian and believe that God used evolution. Since I very much doubt that Christ witholds the saving grace of his blood from anybody who sincerely asks for forgiveness and is baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!

You could take a statement out of the bible and try and interpret it as meaning evolution I suppose, if you are really determined. I've seen some heroic attempts and at times amazing efforts to turn something into what it clearly hasn't said. I'd be interested however in what areas of the bible (quote and verse) that you interpret as referring to evolution?

All the best Russell